Abstract

The design of phase I studies is often challenging, because of limited evidence to inform study protocols. Adaptive designs are now well established in cancer but much less so in other clinical areas. A phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetic profile and antiretroviral efficacy of C34‐PEG4‐Chol, a novel peptide fusion inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection, has been set up with Medical Research Council funding. During the study workup, Bayesian adaptive designs based on the continual reassessment method were compared with a more standard rule‐based design, with the aim of choosing a design that would maximise the scientific information gained from the study. The process of specifying and evaluating the design options was time consuming and required the active involvement of all members of the trial's protocol development team. However, the effort was worthwhile as the originally proposed rule‐based design has been replaced by a more efficient Bayesian adaptive design. While the outcome to be modelled, design details and evaluation criteria are trial specific, the principles behind their selection are general. This case study illustrates the steps required to establish a design in a novel context. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Highlights

  • Positive values indicate that the ‘model’ design performed better than its ‘rule’ counterpart

  • P(selection)⋆ - model 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.59 0.23 0.03 0.00 values for each trial design are means calculated over that design’s set of realisations ⋆ the probability of selecting each dose to take forward to stage 2 † the number of subjects allocated to each dose ‡ the number of observed ineffective events § the number of subjects treated at doses below the target dose

  • P(selection)⋆ - model 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.41 0.35 0.12 values for each trial design are means calculated over that design’s set of realisations ⋆ the probability of selecting each dose to take forward to stage 2 † the number of subjects allocated to each dose ‡ the number of observed ineffective events § the number of subjects treated at doses below the target dose

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Positive values indicate that the ‘model’ design performed better than its ‘rule’ counterpart.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call